Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drink driving

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴陳綺燁

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/2024

On a full rehearing the court concluded that, taken together, the appellant's serious medical history, the improbability she would have consumed large quantities of alcohol given her background, her immediate reporting of the minor collision, contemporaneous claims she had used mouthwash, and the police observations of sobriety created a real and substantial doubt about whether the high breath readings resulted from drinking; therefore the prosecution had not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must be quashed.
6 Jun 2024

HKSAR V. BRAR, GURWINDER SINGH

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA365/2023

Given the appellant's extensive history of traffic offences including a prior drink driving conviction and the failure of earlier sentences to deter him, the magistrate was entitled to impose the sentences including a 3 year disqualification and the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
31 Mar 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW SIU KIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 352
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR6/2022

The court held the starting point of 2 years 9 months adopted by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate given the high level of intoxication (near three times limit), deliberate aggressive driving, ignoring warnings, failure to stop and delayed surrender; an appropriate starting point was 5 years, reduced by the full one-third guilty plea discount and a further 4 months adjustment for review, producing an effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on Charge 1; sentences for Charges 2 and 3 ordered to run concurrently because they were already taken into account as aggravating feature…
16 Mar 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM YING YUEN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR11/2022

Given the presence of tier 3 alcohol aggravation and additional unaddressed aggravating factor that the respondent put his passenger at risk, the original starting point of 18 months was insufficient; a 30-month starting point for Charge 1 was appropriate, reduced to 20 months for plea, further reduced by 3 months for exceptional family mitigation, and a 4-month reduction on review for the dashed hope of imminent release, yielding a substituted custodial term of 13 months; disqualification increased to 3 years under s.36A(6)-(7).
30 Jan 2019

HKSAR v. ABDUL WAHED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA427/2018

The court held that a reduced starting point of nine months imprisonment for Charge 1 was appropriate; after allowing the one-third discount for a guilty plea the proper sentence is six months imprisonment. The appellant's long journey was irrelevant to the particular dangerous driving act, and his medical condition, while serious, did not justify avoiding a custodial sentence given the gravity and deterrent needs of the offence and the statutory enhancement for tier-three drunkenness.
23 Feb 2018

香港特別行政區訴翁耀雋

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA22/2018

The appeal court held there was no procedural unfairness because appellant instructed counsel not to wait for the probation officer report and the sentencing judge reasonably considered appellant's history, breaches of probation, drug dependence, the seriousness of the offence and injury caused; the detention centre order and ancillary orders were not manifestly excessive and therefore the sentence was affirmed.
28 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴曾錦華

Citation

香港特別行政區訴曾錦華
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA559/2017

The sentencing judge's starting point was excessive relative to comparable authorities; taking into account the appellant's guilty plea, relatively low breath readings, absence of accident or impaired driving evidence, and time already spent in custody, the appropriate disposal was to reduce the immediate custodial term to time served and maintain the disqualification and re‑testing orders.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. WEI, EDMUND CHIH CHAN

Citation

HKSAR v. WEI, EDMUND CHIH CHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA237/2016

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate was entitled to find that the appellant's deliberate departure from the scene and delay in reporting materially impeded the investigation and likely reduced recorded breath alcohol readings, constituting aggravating conduct that justified a suspended custodial sentence; the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
8 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. LAM KING SING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KING SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC285/2015

The Court held that although Form Pol 571 was admissible it was unreliable due to the applicant's intoxication, but that reliability aside there was ample circumstantial evidence (palm print on steering wheel, applicant's written identification, strong blood alcohol reading, witness observations and sequence of events) to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was the driver; counsel's conduct was not incompetent; the delay in seeking leave to appeal against conviction was unjustified and the grounds lacked substance so leave out of time was refused; renewal of unmeritorious app…
5 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. LAM KING SING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KING SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC285/2015

Extension of time to seek leave to appeal conviction refused because the applicant's explanation for delay was implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and he had no arguable grounds; convictions sustained because overwhelming circumstantial and forensic evidence established he was the driver and Pol 571 admission was unnecessary to conviction; leave to appeal sentence refused because the sentence fell within a proper range given very high blood alcohol level, dangerous conduct, and limited mitigation.